it was essentially mistaken assumptions of unanimity that brought about voting in the first place. Actual unanimity does not nullify that.

Are you sure you're not one-a them writers?

Sean, first off I hesitate to even engage you and ND on the issues in this strike because you guys are the ones who may really suffer economic harm. So while I support the writers and feel the producers are asshats, my real damages are going to be a lack of good television and movies for awhile. For your sake (and the sake of our Buffista writers), I hope this strike is short and fruitful.

I think Wolfram's vision of unanimity on this issue, and thus the need to truncate this process, is not as unanimous as one might think.

Clearly. Although neither you, Connie or ND have said you do not support the writers. But you have said that you don't necessarily support the signage.

And I strongly disagree that we should make any changes to our procedure because actual unanimity happens once.

Can you construct an argument against adding, to our rules, a truncated voting method for urgent issues, without resorting to slippery slopes?

You don't have to, because I'm not going to propose it anymore. It's not going to happen so I see no reason to re-hash the arguments we've had here.

Sean, first off I hesitate to even engage you and ND on the issues in this strike because you guys are the ones who may really suffer economic harm.

Like ND, I'm hesitant to bring these issues to the discussion, because they probably only muddy the issue, and as you point out, we're still in support of the strike, more or less.

I guess I just didn't want the financial difficulties that are caused by this to be lost on fandom, at least this part of fandom that I'm close to. And hell, we have members who are actually on strike, so they have financial issues too.

Can you construct an argument against adding, to our rules, a truncated voting method for urgent issues, without resorting to slippery slopes?

I'm not sure I can do better than I did in my previous post, specifically that it was false unanimity that brought about voting in the first place, and I'm sure how actual unanimity necessitates a trucated process, or avoids the dangers of false unanimity.

You don't have to, because I'm not going to propose it anymore. It's not going to happen so I see no reason to re-hash the arguments we've had here.

Well, as far as that goes, I very strongly believe that certain failure is a poor reason to not bring something up in the first place. If you still feel that "emergency procedures" are needed, no matter how many people disagree with you, I would support you bringing it up. I'd even second you in the hopes of getting it to a discussion and vote, even if I ultimately vote against it, or that it seems certain of failure. Especially if you can construct your proposal in such a way that the new process can successfully detect and account for dissent.

I guess my main reason for being opposed to your idea is that the main reason for the lengths of the windows of both discussion and voting is to ensure that all who wish to input on a subject get the opportunity to do so, and I just don't see a way around that, regardless of urgency or certain unanimity. everybody should still get their say, and shortening the process only prevents that.

Unless you can come up with a way around that problem. And as I said, please don't let massive opposition to the idea stop you from trying.

Especially if you can construct your proposal in such a way that the new process can successfully detect and account for dissent.

I can't. The perceived need (on my part) for an emergency procedure is not backed by a hypothetical situation that will meet the community's definition of urgent. I thought this situation met that standard, but I've been clearly overruled. So although I believe a situation may come up that enough people concede warrants an emergency procedure, I can't predict what that situation might be. If someone else wants to try and take that ball and run with it, be my guest.

I guess my main reason for being opposed to your idea is that the main reason for the lengths of the windows of both discussion and voting is to ensure that all who wish to input on a subject get the opportunity to do so, and I just don't see a way around that, regardless of urgency or certain unanimity. everybody should still get their say, and shortening the process only prevents that.

Here's where we disagree - and probably where I diverge from many people. I don't think that everyone should get their say in every situation. I think some situations may be so compelling that truncating or bypassing the current voting rules may be warranted. I think that doing something under urgency, and then allowing people to have their say about it is also okay in some situations.

Oi. Yeah, that's a can of worms. I think in many other situations, I'd agree with you, just not on this board. Which sucks, because I don't want to shut you down, just because I disagree with you.

Unless you're secretly Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, or Anne Coulter.

I think some situations may be so compelling that truncating or bypassing the current voting rules may be warranted.

Except I can only think of those situations as involving invading troops, natural disasters, or bloodshed, none of which, thank god, come under our control.

If something needs acted on and you see a means of action, nothing prevents you from saying, "I've put together a website/PayPal account/whatever to address X. I'm going to label it "from your friends at the Buffistas."" and then soliciting donations/people showing up at an event/etc. We've seen several calls to action like that, with impressive response. But if something is going to be an official Buffista statement, I believe it requires a bit more due diligence.

There's no need for a special "urgent decision" voting process because voting is explicitly for decisions that aren't urgent. This is in the cheesebutt doc:

We [are creating] a voting system for community decisions that do not require immediate action. Exemptions: Thread naming, disciplinary action against trolls (although the process itself [has] come up for a vote) and tasks currently performed by Stompy Feet, including but not limited to board maintenance.

I don't think putting an icon in the header required immediate action. And I can't think of anything that I'd consider an urgent issue for the community that would be subject to voting at all.

Wolfram, the biggest flaw that I find with your arguments is that there are people posting, at the very same time that you are, that they *do not* support having the sign added to the header. What more do you really need to prove that your assumption of unanimity on this issue is false?

And I've yet to see anyone offer up a valid reason as to why this is so urgent that 7 days is too long to wait.

Seriously, there is no way this isn't, at some level, a political position. I really don't think it's extreme to want to go through the process to make such a major digression from our past practices.

I sort of wish I hadn't proposed it in the first place. Not to be a whiny douchebag, or anything. It just seems that after a lot of conversation, it's kind of a sticky topic and isn't really a necessary thing at all.